Are you for or against the Oxford comma? No choice when publishing with OUP of course, as even Thérèse Coffey would discover. And I doubt if people would be against adding a comma where a lack of one would lead to funny sentences, as in the examples fom this piece in The Guardian last week. Personally, I would rather not use it when there is no need for it. How about you?
I love Mr Kipling’s little Bramley apple pies, advertised as “exceedingly good cakes”. So far so grammatically good, and good they are. But when buying them this summer during our holidays in England, we also spotted Mr Kipling’s exceedingly good “cherry Bakewells”, which I’d never tried before. But I had heard about them when interviewing a British colleague for my book Languages of The Hague(2019). One of the things she missed most about living in The Netherlands, she told me at the time, were Bakewell tarts. Tarts! What happened to the word? Scrapped because of its negative connotations? Verbal hygiene at work at Mr Kipling’s?
Want to read my book for the 30 other interviews with native speakers of multilingual The Hague? You can order it directly from its publisher, De Nieuwe Haagsche. It is of course “exceedingly good” as well.
This summer, walking into Foyles in London, I came across this usage guide: Writing Wrongs: Common Errors in English, by Robert M. Martin (2018, Peterborough Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press).
New for me, but already four years old, so I was wondering if any readers of this blog have any experience with this usage guide?
Google Books includes the following description of it (emphasis added by me):
“Writing Wrongs is a concise and thoughtful guide to common errors in English. It covers frequently confused and misused words along with problems of grammar, punctuation, and style, and offers a brief and up-to-date guide to major citation styles. Though it provides guidelines and recommendations for usage, Writing Wrongs acknowledges the evolution of language over time and the fact that different contexts have different rules—it is not narrowly prescriptive. A friendly, flexible, and easy-to-read reference, Writing Wrongs will be useful to students and general readers alike.”
On 28 October 2022, TeamWork will be organising a workshop session, called “The mysteries of brackets and old grammar chestnuts”. For more information as well as to register for this event, see the TeamWork website.
One of the workshops will be on the typical Bridging the Unbridegable topic of usage guides and usage problems, and will focus particularly on the question of whether old chestnuts like the split infinitive or the use of who for whom should still be considered (and proscribed as such) wrong. To be able to acquire some preliminary data for the workshop, readers of this blog are invited to complete a brief survey on attitudes regarding some old chestnuts in this history of usage advice. The survey is anonymous, and you will find it here. And if you’re in The Netherlands at the time of the event, do register for it so that you will be able to learn about the results!
If the coincidence Robin Straaijer experienced last week was finding a usage guide ten years after he had been working on it, mine was to find a copy of a German usage guide, the German usage I’ve been told, just five days before I’m giving a paper on the comparative English – Dutch – German complaint traditions.
It is a Duden volume, called Richtiges und gutes Deutsch: Wörterbuch der sprachlichen Zweifelsfälle (6th ed., 2007), with over a thousand pages of German usage problems. The book illustrates one major difference between all three traditions: the existence of set of publications that together make up the “Standardwerk zur Deutsche Sprache”. The English or Dutch traditions don’t have such standard publications. I had of course seen it before, but now I actually own a copy of the book, found in a second-hand bookshop in Leiden. Second-hand bookshops are great places for finding usage guides, as I wrote several times on this blog. I found quite a few copies when we were collecting material for the HUGE database, in the UK but also in The Netherlands. Like Robin though, I wasn’t looking for any more, let alone any German ones. It’s great to have it all the same.
Yesterday, I found this well-worn copy of Margaret Nicholson’s A Dictionary of American-English Usage (Signet 1958) in my local street library (see photo below) just around the corner of where I live.
I realised that it has been just about exactly 10 years after I put the original 1957 edition in the HUGE-database I created for the research project Bridging the Unbridgeable, which we started in 2011.
The book’s subtitle reads “Based on Fowler’s Modern English Usage”, and if memory serves, this was taken quite literally. Although I haven’t done a systematic comparison, the changes from Henry Fowler’s Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press 1926) were – to my recollection – minimal.
However, a quick dip into the HUGE database does reveals an interesting change that was made by Nicholson.
In the entry on all right, Fowler starts out as follows:
“The words should always be written separate; there are no such forms as all-right, allright, or alright” (Fowler 1926, p.16)
Nicholson changed Fowler’s use of the flat adverb “separate” to a full adverbial form, changing the start of the entry to:
“The words should always be written separately; there are no such forms as all-right, allright, or alright” (Nicholson 1957, p.17, emphasis added)
Does this perhaps show a lower tolerance for the use of flat adverbs in American English?
Nicholson’s Dictionary of American-English Usage was possibly an attempt by Oxford University Press to replicate the commercial success of Fowler’s Modern English Usage in the US by appealing to the American market. Apparently the idea worked since this paperback was published just one year after the hardcover. As can be seen from the logo top left on the cover, it is part of a series of cheap paperbacks called “Signet 75c books” – this would put the book’s price at about $7 in today’s money.
Within this project, we’ve focused on English, and started our research on the history of the tradition from the first usage guide believed to have been published, Robert Baker’s Reflections on the English Language, from 1770.
Inspired by this, I started looking for the first usage guide in Dutch, my native language, and found it, or at least, I think I did: I wrote a blog post about it as well as an article in the online journal Neerlandistiek.
My next step was to look for the first German usage guide, for a paper I was preparing last January, and will be giving again next month. I don’t think I found it, so the quest continues, and suggestions are very welcome.
But one thing leads to another, and Matjaž Zgonc from the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia has let us know that he has been working on the first usage guide for Slovenian. It is much, much younger than Baker (1770), and if you want to read about it, read the piece he wrote about if for this blog.
If you wish to add to this growing and very interesting list, do get in touch!
Morana Lukaç and Adrian Stenton will be presenting a study of copy-editors they conducted in 2020 to members of SENSE, the society of English-language professionals in the Netherlands. They’re looking forward to to sharing insights of a study with the community that participated in it and possibly will benefit from it. Save the date, 18th of March 16:00–17:00 CEST, and don’t forget to register for the event!
Abstract: Their presentation is inspired by their online survey of 288 editors in 2020, in which respondents were given very short unedited texts and asked to focus on a single usage feature. Many respondents couldn’t resist editing the entire text, and Morana and Adrian found some interesting differences and similarities in their edits. During the meeting, we’ll find out more about the survey and whether we edit similarly to the respondents.